If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

...true, the past great players have their own achievements and greatness as we can't take anything away from them...
..but for one Taufik, *IF* he wins the upcoming AE, he'll probably go down in badminton history as arguably the *only* shuttler(MS) to ever win, not only the AE, WC & OG titles but winning the AG(Asian Games), not only once but back-to-back, as well(eventhough some would argue that the AG title doesn't really count much and its not a IBF/BWF sanctioned event; though another CHN shuttler also won it back to back)..

I think to be more representative, an event should not exclude others not belonging to the group. Events like the SEA Games, the Commonwealth Games and even the Asian Games are not representative in this sense as a badminton powerhouse like Denmark is excluded from participating.

In my opinion failing to win one of the major titles (OG, WC, AE) doesn't equate he/she is not a great player. As the saying goes 'to be in the right place at the right time' also applies to a player. To be in the right frame in all aspects in any tournaments is so crucial.
The recent MO in Kl is a fine example. TH & LD are both great players but they were drawn to meet in the 1st round...and the result could have gone in TH's favour. And then again, LD failed in the 2nd round but bounce back at the KO.
But if statistics is to be a benchmark, Yang Yang's consistency in winning tournaments overshadows Zhao JH's pure talent and skills. I don't believe that any professional badminton player would in his right sense of mind only target certain tournaments in his career & forego trying to do well in general.

But we are talking about their entire career which could span 10 years or more. A player needs to be at his best to win tournaments. The top professionals would want to pit their skills at the highest level and the three specific events mentioned provide this opportunity. Only the best at that point in time can win!

Here is an analysis of Taufik Hidayat by Wikipedia, it is interesting to note that Taufik says that Lin Dan is the best player ever:

"To some fans, Taufik is perhaps the world's most spontaneously innovative badminton singles player today. According to them, Taufik does not use the methodical play adopted by Chinese players like Lin Dan (much like Ivan Lendl's tennis style), Taufik plays a natural game, full of grace, anticipation, freshness and risks. He is the only first-rung player who retains the 15-point style of play in the revised, current 21 point system.Taufik's strengths lie primarily in his powerful backhand, his tapped forehand drop shot and tantalising net-play. His weaknesses lie is his reluctance to kill from high forehand clears, his impatience with loud crowds and his penchant for returning a net dribble with a net dribble, even when the opponent is dangerously close to the net.In many ways, Taufik's style mirrors the prowling athleticism of one of the greatest players ever to grace the badminton court - Zhao Jianhua. Like Zhao, Taufik looks lazy, moves lazily and wins lazily. But, except when he is annoyed or distracted, Taufik (like Zhao) is anything but lazy. The tactician in him is better than the athlete in him. This is probably why he makes more unforced errors than any other player at his level of ability and skill. (BN)Hidayat is known for his relaxed smooth playing style and is one of the best all round players in the world. According to many players he has the ability to win against any player in the world when he really sets his mind to it. On the other hand he can lose to lower ranked players when he is not completely focused. His lack of consistency and mental fortitude are often points of criticism. Because of this reputation, many fans believe that if Taufik loses a match to any player it is as much because he didn't care enough as that he was truly beaten. Taufik publicly stated in 2006 that Lin Dan is the best player ever in the world but also described him as being arrogant widely disliked other players. (Taufik was defeated three times by Lin Dan in 2006, at the Thomas Cup semi-final tie, Japan Open final and the Hong Kong Open where Taufik forfeited the match after what he thought was a bad line call at 4-1 to Lin in the first game. Taufik defeated Lin Dan in the final of the 2006 Asian Games individual event on December 9 after losing twice to him in three days in the team event preliminaries and semi-finals and dedicated the sweet victory to his father-in-law and chief of the national sports council, Agum Gumelar.)"

I have had an argument about who is the greatest before and come to the conclusion that Rudy Hartono is the greatest. One of the benchmark that I use as well as the critics used is this player must be overwhelmingly dominant during his/her era. Using this criteria it is beyond dispute that Rudy Hartono was overwhelmingly dominant during his era just like Roger Federer, Pele, Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan in their respective sports. Taufik while being a great player doesn't deserve the mantle of the greatest because he is erratic, inconsistent and doesn't truly dominate badminton during his era. To be judged the greatest that player must have the aura of invincibility apparent from his/her record and titles won. Defeat must be something that doesn't come easy to this player. Playing style is not a credible criteria to judge greatness as the most recent players would have benefited from the game played by past players and thus would be technically better as well as more exciting to watch.

I think the record of Rudy Hartono speaks for itself. His achievement in badminton esp. in AE have also been recognised in a bigger way thru the Times' Asian Heroes (http://www.yonex.com/pdf/RudyHartono.pdf)

But let's not forget too during that era we weree missing then the sleeping giant, China, who were struggling with internal turmoil and invisible from the international areana. We all remember what happened when China enter the badminton world by storm in the 80s when they showcase the likes of Luan Jin and Han Jian. I mean they dont suddenly obtain that level of skill out of the blue and who knows what would have happened in the 70s if China players were participating in AE.

I am not trying to diminish Rudy's achievment, which was amazing by any standard. But we need to look at that in proper context.

The badminton, and to the same extent, the sports world were truely representing the "world" in the 80s after China, the largest populated country joined the global village.

I agree with Loh that in order to objectively compare the top players achievement, we need to include those events that are open to all (and thus exclude the likes of SEA games and Asia games/championship). In today's context, we also need to include those major opens 5*, 6* and 7*, which will no doubt draw in the best players because of the price money on offer. See my earlier post #26 that compare the major titles for 2005/2006.

I have included the Asian tournament and should have taken that out. But that would not have altered the overall ranking of the current top 4 players and LD is still the most dominant and consistant MS player at this moment.

Hmmm...

Originally Posted by Loh

I think to be more representative, an event should not exclude others not belonging to the group. Events like the SEA Games, the Commonwealth Games and even the Asian Games are not representative in this sense as a badminton powerhouse like Denmark is excluded from participating.

..sounds reasonable enough...

Originally Posted by Loh

But we are talking about their entire career which could span 10 years or more. A player needs to be at his best to win tournaments. The top professionals would want to pit their skills at the highest level and the three specific events mentioned provide this opportunity. Only the best at that point in time can win!

..true but, IMO, if one can win those 3 titles, sure, personally i would rank him/her as "one of the greatest". Why not?? Winning just 1 of them is difficult enough, imagine winning all 3(i know the Olympics didn't start til abt 15 yrs ago)...Because if i think abt it, how can we judge players from 1 generation to another?? How abt the olden greats like Tan Xin Fu & Hou Chia Chiang and all his competitors??..Are we excluding what they've accomplished??..

I read the article about Rudy Hartono in Linus' post. Adding to the criteria of greatness (ie being dominant) that I already mentioned is the obstacles and hardship that Rudy Hartono had to encounter coming from a relatively poor country and humble background with little resources and support to begin with compared to rich countries like England or Denmark or even the more prosperous Malaysia.

It is true that Rudy's record title numbers is marred by the fact that China was not part of the international badminton fraternity but if we look closer this doesn't tarnish Rudy's achievements. Indonesia, Malaysia and Denmark were badminton powerhouses and Rudy dominated the players from all those countries. China was a badminton giant but their top players, Hou Chia Chiang and Tang Xin Fu, were on the decline due to old age when Rudy emerged as the dominant force in world badminton. So Rudy Hartono truly was the dominant force in the world during that particular era. Sure, Rudy's achievements would have been more solid had China joined the IBF but we should not take anything away from Rudy's achievements as his inclusion to Time magazine 60 years of Asian Heroes. Even way past his prime, at 31, Rudy manage to win the 1980 World Championships by beating Liem Swie King who was in his prime in straight games under 10. After all the experts have good reasons to call Rudy "the maestro" and is considered a "badminton phenomenon".

..Because if i think abt it, how can we judge players from 1 generation to another??

By judging how they react and deal with the challenges presented to them during their era and coming up with the results based on what resources were available to them. It is true that different eras present themselves with different challenges (some eras might have harder challenges) and different level of support or resources and hence different quality of results but I believe that humans in general or great sportspersons have the ability to adapt to their environment and thus would have worked harder to overcome the challenges that they encounter at the time. Their determination to overcome their opponents, discipline in training and mental strength are crucial to their success as well as intelligence in executing their game plan. The more competitive the sport is the better these greats sporstpersons will become because greater competition leads to greater determination and greater determination leads to greater sporting prowess.

Hmmm, all true, but to put it simply...

Originally Posted by sabathiel

By judging how they react and deal with the challenges presented to them during their era and coming up with the results based on what resources were available to them. It is true that different eras present themselves with different challenges (some eras might have harder challenges) and different level of support or resources and hence different quality of results but I believe that humans in general or great sportspersons have the ability to adapt to their environment and thus would have worked harder to overcome the challenges that they encounter at the time. Their determination to overcome their opponents, discipline in training and mental strength are crucial to their success as well as intelligence in executing their game plan. The more competitive the sport is the better these greats sporstpersons will become because greater competition leads to greater determination and greater determination leads to greater sporting prowess.

...IMO, the only way we, as fans and supporters of the game, can "judge" them, is simply to look at what they've accomplished/garnered during their professional playing careers...I think whatever those are should be more than enough for us to "measure" their "history" or some would say their "greatness"..

I am not talking about "judging" from the perspective of fans and supporters of the game but rather from the point of view of experts. Having said this my elaboration on how to judge a players greatness include th players accomplishment as this is the objective manifestation of the various measure that I have mentioned.

Experts??..

Originally Posted by sabathiel

I am not talking about "judging" from the perspective of fans and supporters of the game but rather from the point of view of experts. Having said this my elaboration on how to judge a players greatness include th players accomplishment as this is the objective manifestation of the various measure that I have mentioned.

(looking around)...who's saying "experts"??..certainly not me; i'm just a fan and supporter of the game..
And yeah, the statement i've highlighted in bold, i think you and i can somewhat agree on that..

I am interested in who the experts say is the greatest player because this has a higher value in terms of their judgement. In this case the players themselves of at least a credible level (past and present), the coaches, the badminton administrators, badminton historians etc can guide badminton fans or supporters in coming to the conclusion as to who is the greatest

It's easier to decide on just the 2 'Heavenly Kings'

Originally Posted by kwun

back in the mid to late 80s, there were the 4 "heavenly kings" of badminton, Icuk Sugiato, Morten Frost, Yang Yang and Zhao Jinhua. these guys revolves around each other and share majority of the title. other players like Xiong Guobao comes in a take a title or two but never manage to reach the similar status.

looking at today, i wonder if we are seeing another 4 king era. Peter Gade, Lin Dan, Taufik Hidayat and Lee Chong Wei. the most contended spot is really LCW's. though showing a lot of promise and maintains the #2 spot, he hasn't really shown much results.

the 4 kings of the two era have some simlarities.

Taufik is like Zhao Jinhua, nice techniques and ultra-talented, but not always the most motivated. can win the largest tournament but can also falters to lesser players.

Lin Dan is kind of like Yang Yang, always maintain high level of play and wins consistently.

Hi kwun,

Talking about the 4 'Heavenly Kings' today...... it will cause a great debate.

But if we were to narrow it down to the 2 'Heavenly Kings', then I would say it would be just Lin Dan and Taufik Hidayat.

I am inclined to agree with Sabathiel on his views of an accomplished player. All credit & recognition should be given to Rudy H for his accomplishments during his era despite the absence of the Chinese. I don't think it is sensible to compare him with, say TH. Things have changed, so have the game & equipment used.
Sabathiel has a strong point which I fully agree - dominance in any game. I have earlier mentioned that LD will certainly make a stronger impression in my memory of badminton when he retires than the Chinese guy who won the Olympics some years ago because of his (LD) consistency & dominance.